NCLT Hyderabad held that condonation of delay in filing the claim without indicating any sufficient reasons not acceptable as length of the delay is immaterial, but the reasons for condonation of delay matters.
NCLT Chandigarh held in contract of guarantee, the liability of the principal borrower and guarantor(s) is joint and several. Even if, either the principal borrower or guarantor has been discharged then the other party would not stand discharged automatically till the liability is met out or discharged.
NCLT Delhi ordered initiation of CIRP as petition filed u/s. 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by Financial Creditor is complete in all respect and it is clearly established that the Corporate Debtor is in default of a debt more than the minimum amount stipulated u/s. 4 (1) of the Code
NCLT Kolkata held that just because a creditor enjoys security interest, it cannot be treated higher than other creditors who have financed the Corporate Debtor.
NCLT Ahmedabad held that conjoint reading of Section 30 & Section 53 of IBC shows that the Financial Creditors are placed at a higher priority than Operational Creditors. Hence, as the Financial Creditors have not been paid in full, the Operational Creditors cannot claim a higher amount.
NCLT Mumbai held that petition under section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) duly admissible, as two essential qualification i.e. ‘debt’ and ‘default’ existed.
NCLT Ahmedabad held that residuary jurisdiction of National Company Law Tribunal under section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is limited. Accordingly, application rejected.
NCLT Delhi ordered to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated against the Corporate Debtor, as the Corporate Debtor duly admitted the liability.
NCLT Mumbai approved the resolution plan submitted by the resolution applicant Adani Goodhomes Private Limited as the plan was in accord with the Code and the application regulations framed thereunder.
NCLT Delhi held that this Adjudicating Authority is not a dispute redressal forum. Accordingly, so long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical and illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application u/s. 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
